Before I offer my opinion on the state of the sport of cycling in the US and elsewhere, and before I offer a response to some of the comments – both public and private – to my intention to bring legal action against USA Cycling over the Tour of the Battenkill’s professional race in 2011, I would like to explain the vital parts of how a race gets on the UCI calendar, what the USA Cycling’s National Racing Calendar (NRC) is, what the critical components of a professional race are, and what has transpired over the last 6 months between the Tour of the Battenkill, USA Cycling, and the UCI. I think it will help bring knowledge and context to the discussion. I have left individual’s names out of the below summary.
The NRC is our country’s schedule of professional cycling events that is owned and administered by USA Cycling. It collects a calendar fee from every NRC event each year that is accepted. The UCI owns and administers (through its federation – USA Cycling) the UCI America’s Tour of professional cycling events, just as it owns all the UCI calendars (World, European, Asian, African, Oceanic). Similarly, the UCI collects a calendar fee from each event on the UCI calendar each year. The UCI standard is the highest standard a professional cycling race can meet – either in the USA or elsewhere; the requirements for the race’s operation and execution are stringent and in excess of any other standard including the NRC’s. As with the NRC, there are varying levels of UCI races, with the Grand Tours like the Tour de France, Vuelta de Espana, and the Giro d’ Italia being the among the highest classification. UCI events sanctioned in the US have never to my knowledge been on the NRC, and vise versa. The NRC and the UCI Americas Tour Calendars are separate calendars and teams compete for separate points on each. Many teams compete on both though the UCI calendar is accepted by teams, the UCI, and by USA Cycling as the more prestigious of the two.
There are also varying levels of UCI professional cycling teams. Though – as with races – teams can change levels from year to year, ProTeams (Division 1) are the highest, then Professional Continental (Div. 2), then Continental (Div. 3). Each team is bound by rule UCI rule 2.1.005 regarding participation in UCI and domestic events where the highest level teams may not compete in lower classified events, and, similarly, lower classified teams may not participate in higher classified events. There is some overlap between the two extremes under UCI 2.1.005. UCI-sanctioned events are bound by this rule in which teams they are allowed to accept into their events.
UCI rules 2.1.008 and 2.1.009 define the structure of each federation’s "national calendar" and the restrictions therein on participation of UCI registered teams. As such, NRC events – as "national events" – are restricted to UCI continental teams of the country, regional and club teams, national teams and mixed teams". This has been the established tradition with the NRC with rare exception and controversy (the Tour of the Gila in 2009, for example). ProTeam and Professional Continental teams are explicitly prohibited under UCI 2.1.009 from competing in "national events", that is, NRC-level events.
UCI events receive a ranking each year by the UCI. UCI 1.2 for example. The prefix 1. indicates a one-day race, while a prefix of 2. indicates a stage race. The suffix (.1, .2, .HC, for example) indicates the ranking of the event. The Tour of the Battenkill achieved a UCI 1.2 classification in 2010 – the lowest classification for a one-day road race. The Tour of the Gila (a stage race) received a 2.2 ranking for 2011 (though it has also since abandoned the UCI label). The Amgen Tour of California is a 2.HC event – the highest ranking for a non – "Grand Tour" stage race. Regardless of classification, each UCI event must meet the same minimal operational requirements for their events: full road closures, team caravans, neutral support, communications, minimum distances, field size requirements, etc. They are also restricted to the levels of UCI teams allowed to be invited as per rule 2.1.005. In 2010 there were 33 events on the UCI Americas Tour Calendar (North and South America). There were 4 US races on the 2010 UCI America’s Tour, including the Tour of the Battenkill.
Included in Chapter 7 of the UCI rulebook are brief provisions for Criteriums. They are non-UCI exhibition events typically run after the Grand Tours in Europe featuring the podium finishers and other celebrity cyclists and teams. Criteriums are not considered by the UCI true professional cycling events worthy of earning UCI points by riders. Chapter 7 outlines UCI team or individual participation, course length, minimum prize money, etc. The UCI rulebook is 209 pages long. The section on Criteriums is 3 pages in length.
Immediately adjacent to Chapter 7 is a 2-page Chapter 8 – ‘Individual Races’. This section has similar language regarding participation, etc. and is meant for other non-UCI sanctioned road races not meeting the Criterium section requirements.
24 teams and approximately 175 riders competed in the 2010 Tour of the Battenkill, including UCI and regional elite teams from North America, Europe, and Australia. As a UCI 1.2 event, the 2010 Tour of the Battenkill was not permitted to accept ProTeams to the event as per UCI rule 2.1.005, described above. The Tour of the Battenkill complied with this rule and with every other rule in the UCI rulebook in 2010. The event was run successfully and received wide acclaim. The post-event report by the UCI-assigned Commissaire included comments about deficiencies in the Press Room and with the effectiveness of the ‘time board’ during the race (even though it was a UCI assignment and was affected by the weather that day). Despite the scope of the event and its first year on the UCI calendar, there were no other deficiencies noted in the report.
In June of 2010 the Tour of the Battenkill applied for an upgrade to their UCI sanctioning to a UCI 1.1 status – the next highest classification that would allow it to invite the highest level teams. Its denial by the UCI was confirmed by USA Cycling, citing the UCI post-event report. Nevertheless, the 2011 Tour of the Battenkill was given a UCI 1.2 sanctioning for 2011, as in 2010. The event was scheduled for Saturday, April 16, 2011.
In September of 2010 I learned through cycling media outlets that USA Cycling and the UCI were considering allowing Criterium events on USA Cycling’s NRC. I submitted an objection to the UCI, outlining the reasons why this would be disenfranchising to UCI-level events that have expended resources to meet the higher, UCI sanctioning. If lower-classified NRC Criteriums were to be given access to the same level of teams as a UCI 1.2 event like the Tour of the Battenkill, then it would render the UCI sanctioning meaningless with event sponsorship efforts; NRC events would have the same negotiating power with UCI teams and sponsors as the Tour of the Battenkill and similar events, though they would only have to meet the lower, NRC standard. As such, I asserted with the UCI and with USA Cycling that if the NRC Criterium access were to be granted, that UCI level events like the Tour of the Battenkill should be granted a similar-scaled concession and be allowed to accept entries from the next higher class of teams – UCI ProTeams. The UCI responded that the ‘rule book will be adhered to’ and forwarded its response to USA Cycling.
In October of 2010, USA Cycling proposed that all UCI 1.2 (one-day) and 2.2 (stage race) events will now be part of the NRC. This was designed to provide a ‘stepping stone’ for both teams and events. UCI events already on the UCI Calendar would be given the highest classification on the domestic / NRC calendar as NRC 1.HC (one day races) and NRC 2.HC (stage races). I approved of this approach and agreed to list the Tour of the Battenkill on the NRC while also holding a spot on the 2011 UCI Americas Tour Calendar of events as it was consistent with the apparent goals of the NRC to develop teams and events. But I maintained my concerns for equal status to ProTeams for events.
In November of 2010, USA Cycling hosted its annual NRC Promoters Summit and the issue over NRC Criteriums and their access to UCI Professional Continental teams in contradiction to UCI rule 2.1.009 ("national events") was discussed in depth. Also discussed was the fact that USA Cycling owns and operates the NRC and controls its calendar, structure, and brand identity. There I reasserted my claim that a unilateral concession made to NRC Criteriums would be a direct disenfranchising of UCI-level events like the Tour of the Battenkill that have endeavored to meet the higher, UCI standard; it would have a direct financial and undue impact on the Tour of the Battenkill and similar events. Several opinions were offered by other promoters and by USA Cycling itself. Given the acknowledged shortcomings of the UCI rulebook that is clearly biased in favor of the European tradition of bicycle racing (with minimal attention given to criteriums, and without consideration of the challenges of attracting the best teams to non-European events), all agreed that access to the highest level of UCI professional teams was appropriate for all NRC events including criteriums; due to the European focus of ProTeams and Professional Continental teams and the UCI rule book itself, and the opposing dominance of criteriums as a racing medium in the US, events in this country (and any other outside of Europe where professional teams and events are abundant) have limited access to the highest level of teams already. All agreed that the UCI should modify its stance relating to rules 2.1.005 and 2.1.009. Individuals at USA Cycling assured us that they were vigorously addressing the issue directly with the UCI in an effort to raise the level of racing in the United States. No conclusion was met nor was a solution provided by USA Cycling, however, other than to continue advocating for change with the UCI and to address the nature of the NRC itself in future years.
The rules changed in favor of NRC Criteriums on January 13, 2011 at the expense of all other non-Criterium events on the 2011 NRC calendar. USA Cycling announced that not only UCI Professional Continental but now also UCI ProTeams (in excess of the September, 2010 rumor!) would now be allowed at NRC Criteriums in 2011. I immediately protested to USA Cycling on the grounds that it was a disenfranchising of the Tour of the Battenkill and other non-criterium events on the NRC and UCI calendars. I further inquired with USA Cycling as to the current progress toward a similarly-scaled concession for higher-classified/UCI events like the Tour of the Battenkill. USA Cycling’s response was that no progress had been made and this change applied to NRC Criteriums only. I immediately withdrew the Tour of the Battenkill from the UCI calendar as a result. I further requested that the Tour of the Battenkill (still a NRC event) be allowed to consolidate onto a single day on Sunday, April 10 with our popular Pro/Am event (the largest road cycling race in the United States) so as to have the opportunity to meet our budget with a single day of investment in race infrastructure (police, EMS, prize payout, volunteers, etc.). The request for a date consolidation with our Pro/am on April 10 was met with resistance by USA Cycling. USA Cycling stated that the NRC calendar was agreed upon by all parties during the ‘NRC calendaring period’ in the fall of 2010 and a date change to April 10 would conflict with a NRC Criterium scheduled for Saturday, April 9 (though that event now had access to higher quality teams!). I noted that there were at least four other instances on the NRC calendar of date conflicts or direct overlap between NRC events already. USA Cycling maintained that the calendaring process must be adhered to and accepted. Further, I was told that if the Tour of the Battenkill was no longer on the UCI calendar, that it would be given the NRC’s lowest rating, NRC 1.4, as a ‘first-year event’. Along with the lack of acceptance of the date change, I protested as the event was not a first year event and was successfully run as a UCI 1.2 event in 2010. Nevertheless, various options for dates and sanctioning were discussed. I asserted that – considering the mid-stream change in policy for the NRC Criteriums – at a minimum USA Cycling should grant the Tour of the Battenkill and similar events access to the highest levels of UCI teams, as they had done with Criteriums, and also allow the Tour of the Battenkill to remain on the NRC calendar on Sunday, April 10. USA Cycling refused.
Shortly thereafter, I then engaged the advice from an attorney who notified USA Cycling of our intent to file suit should an amicable agreement not be reached between the parties. This letter was published in its full form in various media outlets. We maintained that the January 13 announcement changed the entire nature and dynamic of the NRC calendar itself and violated the terms of a contract whose conditions and terms were agreed upon during the fall, 2010 ‘NRC calendering period’. Subsequent discussions have asserted our claim that – given the limited resources that all events compete over – immediate and irreparable financial harm has been done by USA Cycling to the Tour of the Battenkill and other events by their Jan 13 announcement in allowing UCI ProTeam and Pro Continental teams at NRC-level Criterium events in 2011 in violation of the terms of the NRC. Finally, an alternate solution was presented to USA Cycling for non-criterium events – Chapter 8 – "Individual Races" which would have allowed similar access to non-criterium events. Though equally apparent in the UCI rulebook, it was not secured in conjunction with criteriums during USA Cycling’s discussions with the UCI. USA Cycling – through their attorney – has since indicated that they are unwilling to make a single accommodation to our requests.
I’ve provided the above summary as accurately as possible and it includes the relevant points in as much detail as I can provide. In my opinion, the present disagreement stems from the sum total of a lack of leadership and initiative at all levels of the professional cycling infrastructure in the USA and elsewhere. It’s time for a change to the status quo.
Professional cycling is a business like any other. Even outside the more visible Grand Tours like the Tour de France, Vuelta, and Giro, event organizers still operate large budgets that include all the costs of running an event: marketing, advertising, officials, housing, food, prize payouts, materials, infrastructure, logistics, transportation, law enforcement, emergency services, permits, donations, and personnel. Budgets range from the tens of thousands to the millions of dollars. Virtually all budgets for events that reach the NRC level are in the six figures or more. UCI events typically have the highest budgets as the style of racing (stage races and road races) incur significantly higher expenses in the US as compared to events in Europe and the other two styles of road cycling events: criteriums and time trials.
All NRC and UCI events require an enormous amount of time and effort to produce. Their success is in part measured by the amount of exposure they get locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally – all of which are all tied to the quality of the event and the participation of professional teams and riders. Their ultimate success is measured by their balance sheet and the most significant source of income is cash sponsorship. Some make it, and some don’t. From start to finish, however, events agree to be run according to a defined set of rules. When USA Cycling decided to change rules on the fly in this case, it had financial and cascading ramifications. The Tour of the Battenkill professional UCI race found itself in this unenviable position. It could have and should have been avoided if – in my opinion – our national governing body, USA Cycling, had leaders fully willing to diverge from the status quo that the UCI imposes on the sport in the US and around the globe.
Individuals, including individuals at USA Cycling and some of my fellow NRC promoters have suggested that, by discovering the loop hole in the UCI rulebook for NRC Criteriums that allows all levels of UCI teams to those events, USA Cycling has done a ‘great service’ to professional cycling in the USA. If I close one eye, I agree; NRC Criteriums should have access to all the professional teams available and interested in racing this unique, American style of racing that dominates our "national calendar"; the European model is too cumbersome for the USA with its expensive infrastructure as compared to Europe. If I open the other eye, though, I see the immediate and relative effect it has on every other event, regardless of UCI or NRC status that does not have an equivalent access. This is in contradiction to the terms and conditions of the contract I signed with USA Cycling.
All events are competing for the limited resources available: teams, sponsorship, and dates on the calendar. In direct contradiction to the rules that were agreed upon, USA Cycling handed one class of NRC event a bonus and then told all the other non-criterium NRC events that it’s ‘for the sake of improving cycling in the USA’. They then told me as a non-criterium event promoter that they’ll ‘perhaps address my situation next year’. I take issue with that. It’s a direct violation of the contract I signed with USA Cycling where the calendar and sanctioning of races was already decided. Events will go out of business in the meantime while we all wait for the completed package from USA Cycling. If someone told a business it had to suffer while its competitors were free to prosper, they might have a problem with that too. Any business would and should raise the red flag of injustice given similar circumstances. So I did. As a friend recently mentioned in describing the suggestion that an event should go bankrupt in support of the ‘greater good’ – "you go first!"
This, unfortunately, is a reflection of an alarming and disappointing trend. It’s a pattern of behavior that appears to be standard operating procedure at USA Cycling and widely accepted by many NRC promoters, unfortunately. They have – under the watchful eye of the UCI – for years been dictated the terms of their success at the expense of otherwise commercially-viable events and teams. This has occurred sometimes – as I and others believe – in violation of antitrust and other pertinent laws not yet tested in this context.
This also, unfortunately, stems from a lack of ethics and responsibility at our sport’s governing body and must change if the sport of cycling at the professional level is to be taken seriously with its benefactors and as an industry in the United States. The apparent lack of negotiating power and stature with the UCI is embarrassing. Obvious are the blatant conflicts of interest on their board of directors, where members and large donors have in the past included professional team managers, professional team owners, and prominent professional riders who presumably have direct influence over the policies and long-term agreements from which they will benefit directly. Finally, their apparent lack of interest in establishing a firm and vocal stance on anti-doping is an embarrassment to the sport at the expense of the efforts of its membership and events. It’s time for them to go.
If the leadership at USA Cycling is unwilling to advocate on behalf its membership at the international level, and it continues to select which events and teams are allowed to prosper domestically and internationally in this way and others, then I argue that the status quo should change.
In light of the current misuse of influence with the UCI, and acknowledging the current federal investigations into the sport that have developed under their watch, and recognizing their recent and apparent unfair treatment of several prominent professional cyclists, and in seeing the several documented conflicts of interests at the highest levels of USA Cycling, USA Cycling has become an embarrassment to the sport of cycling in the USA and abroad. It’s time for the leadership at USA Cycling to acknowledge their many failures and immediately step down from their posts.
Dieter Drake
Race Director
2011 Tour of the Battenkill
I got three flat tires and bonked just trying to read this.
USAC has taken Battenkill off of the NRC calendar.
Pro/1 race is still closed on bikereg so we’ll see what Dieter does next.
Having a good NRC level would have been in everyone’s interest.
Dieter can drop off the NRC calendar and hold an individual race. UCI rules will let him invite up to 3 Pro Tour riders per team. Doesn’t seem that this appeals to him. Being a UCI or NRC race brings a lot to the table. Be careful before you try to blow it all up by going to court.
Would USAC tell teams they can’t race?
Who do you work for?! Seems as though you enjoy making threats. You must have a LOT more to hide. Interesting.
If the point is to make money, isn’t holding an amateur event better? The race attracts thousands of riders who pony up good money. The venue and racing is terrific and that’s what has made it such an attraction. Besides, don’t you have to pay the big pro teams appearance money? Other than Floyd Landis of course.
Eh, what do I know…I just ride around in circles in some big city park. And stop at red lights.
I recall how when I was first getting into the sport, Mike Fraysse and Jack Simes were going at each other over who had the authority to sanction races – my dues supporting USCF and Fred Mengoni’s backing US PRO. Fraysse had just brought over Eddie Borysewicz, whose action (with the help of Ed Burke) of blood doping the ’84 Olympic team would force Fraysse to tragically move a few chairs down on the USCF Board. 30 years later, and all this is surprisingly familiar, except we barely have any juniors, and the UCI is now truly providing exemplary leadership.
“Such an aggressive approach might perhaps work in the USA but it does not in Europe and most definitely not with me. I have carefully checked all the procedure and the UCI legal department has explicitly followed the rules and procedures as stipulated in our rules.” – Hein Verbruggen, 2001, to Landis’s lawyer regarding his pay guarantee. Needless to say, they weren’t following the rules.
An aggressive approach does not work here, either. What’s ‘good for the sport’ now is what was good for the sport then, 1981, 2001, or 2011, excluding, of course, any and all concern over conflict of interest.
The UCI rules seem ridiculous but they are all about the all time favorite topic on nyvelocity; SANDBAGGING. Just look at Pro Tour as Cat 1,Pro Conti Cat 2,Conti Cat 3 and USAC/Cat 1 as Cat 4. The UCI’s intent for the rules is to prevent sandbagging and protect lower classes of riders so they can develop.
Pro Tour events – Cat 1 and select Cat 2
UCI 1.HC and UCI 1.1 – limited Cat 1/Cat 2/Cat 3
UCI 1.2 – Cat 2/Cat 3/Cat 4
NRC – Cat 3/Cat 4
There are complaints that these rules should not apply the same in the US as Europe, that allowing Pro Conti riders in NRC events will help the sport. USAC is among those complaining but these rules are the UCI’s strongest weapon to get races in US to go UCI and get teams to upgrade. It’s not fair to blame USAC for the UCI not giving in on these rules.
Sandbaggers – I think you have it right. The best thing is for there to a strong incentive for US races to become true UCI races and this should apply to both One Day, Stage and Criterium races.
This is all quite complicated to me, but I when Dieter starts talking law suits, I think that is guaranteed self destruction and poor politics. At the level Dieter is playing, or trying to play, you have to be prepared to work with USAC, make your arguments, work the angles and be prepared to comprise.
Battenkill is the best one day race on the East Coast and there is a lot of support from riders. I wonder if Dieter has tried to get too big, too quick.
It does seem that Dieter is getting the short end of the stick. It just goes to show that this is a political process not an administrative one. Just because he has been able to produce a large rider count does not mean that he is in favor with USAC or the UCI. He seems to think that because he promotes one of the largest amateur events in the country that he carries some weight with these bodies. It almost seems like they are going out of their way to prove that he doesn’t.
I am sure that the NCR Crit rule will impact his ability to attract pro riders and in turn hurt his chances at obtaining large sponsors but that rule change will only help our sport. Let’s face it; road races are not spectator friendly. In fact, they are pretty boring to watch. You get to see them start and finish. All of the action happens in between. Crit’s on the other hand, are start to finish elbow-to-elbow, spectator friendly excitement. Spectators get to see every attack, counter and crash!
Maybe Dieter should step back, look at the big picture and embrace this rule change. He should take his lumps this year and change his strategy for next. Make it a two-day event .A road race on Saturday and down town Crit on Sunday and invite the pro’s to race both.
He wanted to consolidate his race into a one-day event because of the infrastructure costs involved with hosting a Road Race that was spread over two days. This would resolve that issue too.
Life gives you lemons…………………………………
To Life give you lemons:
Why should he follow the same format John follows? After all, isn’t this exactly why he posted? I think we should let John continue to do his events. After all, they have become total freak shows for the sport. Then, to pacify his bloated ego, he can say he single-handedly eliminate any remaining integrity left in the sport…assuming there was any to begin with, that is. He’s a huge part of the insidious, pervasive, systemic cancer that lives deep in the bowels of the political ‘regime’ in the sport. Too bad everyone focuses on the athletes. Focusing on the athlete, whether it is cycling or any other sport is just a red herring.
BTW, has anyone read the By-laws. They don’t say anything about integrity, conflict of interest, etc. It’s basically, by them, for them and of them and what they want, whenever they want it. Did anyone notice that John’s on the Board. Any conflict of interest there?
Just asking.
Still haven’t been paid winnings…
Seems there is one bigger wheel that goes around besides simply the two that we roll as an enjoyable past time.
There is a disturbing trend as far as I am concerned of race promoters not having their race sanctioned by USAC. Quabbin is one and Stage Race of CT is another this year. I sincerely hope Battenkill does not become another.
Racers; the USAC rules that exist for how a race is run is primarily about safety for you as racers. If a race is permitted by USAC, who is looking after your interests? The promoter will tell you they are, but as we can see from Dieter, he is most interested in ensuring he gets sponsorship and enough money to make himself a good profit.
I have absolutely nothing against promoters wanting to make money, but when they step outside of the USAC rules, you need to understand that there is no one looking after your interests and safety.
Interestingly, those same Non-USAC races still require YOU to have a USAC license….because it make its easier for them. Sound a little hypocritical?
Did anyone actually take the time to read this? It appears that Dieter is following the rules and USAC is changing them whenever they want. I am amazed people here don’t this. Going off on philosophical tangents and personal attacks is just filling up space.
Dieter is right and should follow through with it.
Besides, the history of the USAC seems a bit shady if you asked me. I think Lance & Co. took it over and are calling all the shots. If USAC can’t shake those ties soon, they’ll be in bigger trouble than a little lawsuit over a contract.
USAC has not changed any rules. The UCI has decided to enforce rules toward which they used to turn a blind eye in the US. The crit rule is very old and its implementation in the US had nothing to do with and was not aimed against Battenkill.
The only complaint Dieter has with USAC in regard to Battenkill is anything they had to do with the UCI gving him 1.2 instead of 1.1 status.
Dieter’s problem with sponsors and the reason he probably correctly got a 1.2 classification is eyeballs. There just are not that many people who are going to go watch a road race in Cambridge. Not many of the riders in the Pro/Am are going to take a trip up the following week. Besides 2,500 is huge for entries in a race but small for turnout to watch a UCI 1.1 race. Sponsors need bigger numbers. Dieter has to figure out how to get people watching on TV or the internet. 1.1 might help a little but not that much unless you have the top stars and he’s not going to get that against the classics in Europe.
Burning bridges with USAC, UCI, velonews and increasing numbers of others who do not share his delusions of grandeur is not going to help. It’s all a little sad because Dieter has been doing great things for the sport.
Dieter – I want to thank you for supporting amateur racing and for providing some of the most unique and interesting races on the regional calendar. Whatever happens with the pro race, please don’t abandon the amateur races.
Dieter’s op-ed is in response to this from John Eustice.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/op-ed-john-eustice-on-the-tour-of-the-battenkill-controversy_158396
Sean Petty of USAC said that Dieter’s letter to the UCI was about the exemption that let Armstrong ride Gila not the criterium rule.
“What precipitated the UCI last fall issuing the notice that they planned to enforce the full letter of the rulebook at U.S. races and would not offer exemptions for Pro-Continental teams in 2011?
A.
At the time, Dieter Drake sent a note directly to Pat McQuaid at the UCI, not to us, not any question or clarification, but directly to the president of the UCI. That triggered a response from the UCI road department that we were to ensure that all UCI rules were respected for all national level races, which would apply to the road, stage and time trials.
An email directly to the president of the UCI from a U.S. organizer weakens our case when we say, ‘This is what we need and want in the U.S. and this is what our racing community, teams and promoters need and want. Then they get a letter directly from a promoter in the U.S. that says, ‘No, ProTeams and PC teams shouldn’t be able to race in non-UCI races because it injures us who put on UCI races.’ It only weakens our discussions that we’re having with the UCI on these topics.
Ideally you’d want all of the organizers — and I think most of them are this way — pulling in the same direction, understanding the challenges we all have in making this work within the confines and structures of the UCI teams.â€
Sean Petty said: “This is what we need and want in the U.S. and this is what our racing community, teams and promoters need and want.”
What he actually meant: “This is what we need and want for any events promoted by Medalist Sports and our other favorite promoters and this is what the USAC executive board, with their fingers deep in the pockets of these same promoters, want…”
Dieter, you’re being self-distructive. Abusing people and then asking them for favors (like moving your date on top of another NRC race) won’t help you achieve your goals.
Battenkill ran the day after Anniston last year too. So what’s the big deal?
BTW, how many people are signed up for Anniston? Last time I checked, Dieter had 2,500+
You need to stop being apologetic for the pricks at USAC.
And a lot of those 2,500 folks would like to see a real pro race after they finish. What’s wrong with that?
Oh, that’s right – now crits are more important than one-day classics. Put down the Kool Aid!
Why was Dieter so eager to move from a 1.2 to 1.1 race? What difference would having a handful of Pro Tour riders make. Wouldn’t it hurt more that the top regional NRC elite teams would be kicked out of the race.
A lot of the regional elite riders helped make Battenkill a great success. Why so eager to move on?
Giving the elite teams a chance to go against Pro Conti riders has a lot of appeal.
If you hate crits then you must also hate freedom!
We are talking about an international governing body that allowed and was very likely complicit in pervasive doping of the sport for decades and a national governing body that hasn’t been much better. If they are corrupt in one administrative area of the sport do we really expect them not to be in other areas as well. also in the US it is such a small sport, not only is the pool of quality athletes small, the pool of quality administrators is going to be small as well and we have experienced that first hand for years at the USAC.
Great post, my thoughts exactly. I guess we should applaud Dieter for taking on this case, but no one should be surprised at the incompetance and corruption at the higher levels of this sport.
Sponsors want big names. It really doesn’t matter that much for many other high caliber races, because they get tons of money from states and local governments (California, ex-Georgia, etc.). Until that money goes away – then the race is kaput.
Last year, I think Washington County gave Dieter two mules and a llama. But Pepsi gave big money, and wanted big names. When a race is run like a business, it needs to respond to sponsor’s interests. No big names, no big money.
BTW, a race held under UCI Chapter 8 permits all levels of elites – ProTeams, ProContinentals, Continental Amateurs, regionals, and Cat 1’s. One big party that I would like to see after my race is over.
Dieter charges $75/rider for 2500+ riders, can’t find enough sponsors to put on the pro race, and then complains that he can’t have ProTour riders? How does he plan to pay for the teams to come to the race if he can’t find any sponsors? Sounds like he is putting the cart before the horse.
Hey Karl Marx, I suppose he should work for free? How about we tell you what you should bring home. Don’t buy the product then. Someone else will.
Cycling is under valued everywhere.
One equation, either way you cut it:
Sponsors = ProTeams
ProTeams = Sponsors
Get either one, and the other tends to be right behind. Of course, only if the race is interesting and popular too.
The USAC/UCI method to date:
Sponsors + ass kissing + kickbacks = ProTeams
The only big name that could draw sponsors is Lance Armstrong and he’s not coming and neither is his team. I can’t believe that sponsors would pay that much to have the likes of Caleb Fairly and Andrew Talansky show from Garmin. The really big names will be at some race in Paris
USAC bots.
The crit rule change was announced in January. At that point Dieter said it was the last straw and he dropped the UCI spot. If he didn’t have his sponsors lined up by January he was in deep trouble. Unless Dieter isn’t telling us something blaming it on the crit rule change sounds bogus.
Uh, I think Battenkill said they were having trouble with sponsors. USAC canceled all prospects overnight. Your membership fees at work.
+1 for conciseness and accuracy.
Uh, I think Battenkill said they were having trouble with sponsors. USAC canceled all prospects overnight. Your membership fees at work.
Don’t really know that Dieter could attract bigger sponsors (or more money from the same sponsors) with the same UCI 1.2 as before. Still not ProTeams…
According to the article, he was denied UCI 1.1 back in June. Seems like the NRC Crit ruling was just the icing on the cake.
And sponsors can come at the last minute – what about Philly last year?
Unless you have a crystal ball, how do you know who could come to the race anyway? Maybe Caleb wants to come back just because he likes cleaning the dirt between his toes. Maybe Lance has another girlfriend in Saratoga. One thing’s for sure – we’ll never know if the USAC/UCI kills Dieter’s access to these riders.
dieter, be honest. Publish your UCI report for the sake of transparency. You didn’t lose out on 1.1 becaus of press room and time board. Those are code for not treating officials well enough, poor infrastructure, and weak radio communications and radio tour.
too bad, it’s a great race, but goes to show how marginal our little thing is
As one of the parties responsible for the technical direction of the 2010 Battenkill pro race, I’ll reply to your mistaken impressions:
1. Really, the timeboard and press room comments were all there was in the UCI report, just as Dieter described. I’m sure that he’ll put the report out, if he hasn’t already.
2. I’ve seen a number of UCI reports for other major races, including a few 1.HCs – none of them were anywhere as brief, and many carried fines (we had none). Yet those races have continued to reap the benefits of higher race status. Why don’t you ask the UCI to publish the race reports for all America’s Tour events in 2010? It’ll be interesting reading, and it will change your opinion on the matter.
3. The radios and race channels provided by Dieter were fine – top quality stuff. Comm 1 (the UCI Chief) didn’t know how to use them, despite having approved the communications plan well in advance of the event, and getting briefed on radio protocol the day before the event. Truth be told, the race would have run more smoothly with local/regional USAC officials at the helm. There was a surprising lack of interest on behalf of the UCI leading up to the event, and it showed. As a former high-level official myself, I felt embarrassed by their performance at the event. If Dieter made any mistake after the 2010 event, it was not immediately complaining about the poor performance of certain UCI staff at the event.
4. Radio Tour was also working fine, but the information getting fed from Comm 1 to our announcer was totally inadequate – no less than 10 referee (UCI) vehicles in the caravan, and only a few timesplits in the last 20km. We had great timesplits in the director’s vehicle, but the UCI protocol prevented us from getting them out. Again, this was a failure of the UCI, not the promoter.
I think the UCI knew they screwed up these aspects of the race – and that’s probably why none of those items were brought up in the UCI report. There were no “UCI code of conduct” transgressions you refer to, and I think you’re reaching a bit by even making these allegations.
In 2010, we went by the book (the UCI rulebook, that is), and put on an epic race. But if you were there, you already know that.
Give me a call if you care to debate any of this.
Connie K.
(518) 441-2319
Best of luck – but is it on or off?
Thank you, Dieter, and to others like you who are principled and unafraid to publicly address issues that many of us have attempted to voice less strongly and eloquently about USA Cycling. There are *many* of us in the San Francisco bay area who wholeheartedly agree with your stance and wholeheartedly support you.
I’m not courageous enough to use my real name here because I fear the backlash from the leadership at large at USA Cycling. Those of us who try to make a living from this sport as promoters, sponsors and professional athletes have long suffered from the lack of support– indeed the abject hostility and apathy– of USA Cycling, and increasingly so over the last few years. Many promoters here in the bay area and on the west coast in general (see Oregon) no longer wish to be associated with USAC because the ROI for our events isn’t there, and the effort to put up with USAC’s bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, and historical and ongoing corruption isn’t worth it.
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but there are many, many people I know who agree on these issues and allegations, and we’re tired of it. It has created a hostile business environment, a hostile racing scene, and many athletes at both the top and local levels of the sport don’t trust their national governing body any more. It’s almost a running joke for anyone who has had to deal with USA Cycling on any regular basis. In short, the Old Boys Club that is USAC is only looking out for itself at the detriment of the sport domestically and internationally.
Get out of Dodge, USAC. In your current incarnation and makeup, you’re no longer wanted.
Dieter,
I admire your courage in standing up to these institutions. Often I hear grumblings of “f*^k the UCI/USA Cycling” but never hear any solution on how to grow the sport and keep professional athletes pro. I think you’re hitting em where they listen, their money belt. Right on. Keep up the good work, I’m trying to swing flying out there to race Battenkill!
Heard through the grapevine that it’s definitely on.
I’m not surprised at the actions of USA Cycling. USA cycling has been a mess since it was basically taken over by a few rich folks who run the US pro organization. Just ask Les Ernest. If you are in the good graces of those guys then you get what you want. Dieter put together a big race that is getting very popular and the guys out west were getting worried it would get bigger than the races they control. Dieter tried to play by their rules, but a few months before his race they changed the rules on him. It’s sad that USA cycling is using our membership money to play favorites.
fuck the UCI and fuck USAC. can we just ride our fucking bikes already?
Les Ernest
http://www.sandcreeksports.com/usa_cyclings_history_of_crooked_elections.pdf
Man, fuck this. I’m going to finish watching Blue’s Clues with my kids and then ride the Bkill course on my Computrainer, where it’s a UCI 1.HC event forever.
Dieter, I’m really very sorry here as I understand the rules are being changed unjustly and unfairly against your favor, but I think you have to step back and run your race in the best manner possible following the legislature and guidelines set up by USAC and the UCI.
At this point the race is receiving more negative press than anything.
Also please keep in mind that both USAC and the UCI are not obligated to grant NRC or UCI status moving forward….even if you were to get what you want this year, they might not be willing to grant you it again. Should they choose to do that, the race will die, like so many other fantastic events have in the past. While B’kill is a great race, people don’t show up because of the dirt roads. They show up because it is a top USAC event. You can’t survive without USAC, but USAC can survive without you. It might not be fair, but you’re fighting a battle you’re not going to win.
I strongly recomend that moving forward you keep all legal action/correspondence with USAC as private as possible. It is damaging the credibility of the race.
Lance armstrong is (most likely) guilty as all hell. Do we ever hear him directly reference specific details anymore? No. He gives a very clear “no comment” or “No” response. Less is more. The more info the public learns, the shakier the race appears, and if people think there’s a possiblity it’s going to hell in a handbasket, they won’t come at all.
Waiting 12 months for prize money doesn’t aid your image either. I needed rent money in July, the extra 10% didn’t help.
Bots
Did you even read the op-ed? In case you didn’t (which is what I think), I have an analogy that should explain the situation Dieter Drake finds himself: pretend this is a bike race. You paid your entry fee, did your all your training and show up on the line to race. The official gives the starting line instructions and you are told that Joe Schmo who has never raced at your level before has been given the opportunity to race with you and also selected to finish first today – no matter the effort he puts forth. Wouldn’t you be pissed?
Now, go back and read how a race gets to be on the UCI calendar. Then read how a race is put on the NRC calendar. It is much easier to get on the NRC calendar. USAC has granted NRC Crits – but not road races – access to the top of the line riders. They draw crowds and sponsors. To get on the NRC calendar requires a fraction of the rules & work that it takes to get on the UCI calendar and there is a much lower standard that has to be met. The Battenkill and Univest were left out of this suprise loophole. Eustice is being a pussy – unless, of course, he gets a waiver like Gila did the last two years. Now there is something to watch for.
“The official gives the starting line instructions and you are told that Joe Schmo who has never raced at your level before has been given the opportunity to race with you and also selected to finish first today – no matter the effort he puts forth. Wouldn’t you be pissed?”
Isn’t that how Eustice won his first championship?
Plus, aren’t Crits what John views as lucrative for promoters?
Just FYI, I like the way John, in his Op-ed piece talks about sacrifice and grueling hardships for those in the sport! Really?! What does he know about sacrifice and hardship?! Everything I know about the guy seems to indicate that he is nothing more than a mere dandy who has spent his whole life fulfilling his self-indulgences. Not to mention, in order to fulfill those indulgences, he’d sell his first-born and call that sacrificing for the sport. He wouldn’t even think twice about it.
The only rider who’s going to make a difference to sponsors is Lance Armstrong and he wouldn’t enter Battenkill anyway.
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the nice comments. I hope that through this summary & statement people might understand my position a little better. You may not agree with it, and that’s fine, but I felt it had to be stated nonetheless to counter some of the misinformation out there. Thanks to Dan and NYvelocity for printing it.
Thanks,
Dieter Drake
Race Director
2011 Tour of the Battenkill
You guys laud Landis for shaking things up then criticize this guy for not playing the game. Which is it? (and it is not a different “set of circumstances”, it is going against authority for what you believe in)
For the record: I have absolutely no interest in having ProTeams at the Univest. Clearly, none of you out there understand what hosting them at an event entails, and what the personnel, infrastructure and costs are that needed to support them. I do, from my years of contracting and managing them (their equivalents at the time) when I handled the Philly pro race and others of that level.
Univest was designed to as a gateway race to that racing class and will remain so. And I think that the UCI/NRC classification for our highest level open race category is an excellent design that provides balanced competition.
The best single day race in the East coast, and in North America for that matter – Montreal/Quebec ProTeam races included – is by a very large margin the Philadelphia race. 25 years of network-quality live TV, a superb “palmares” including Eric Heiden, Laurent Jalabert, George Hincapie, and so on. The rest of us remain in its shadow.
Philly is an overrated race and has not evolved. It almost always ends in a field sprint (boring) because the course is not selective. Manayunk Wall is a non-issue because the descent neutralizes any effort up the hill.
Crowd attendance is down and TV ratings for Philly is poor. Pro Tour teams generally skip Philly making it little more than an overglorified NRC race.
And the loss of Lancaster, Reading, Trenton, Freehold lead-up events means that fewer teams will likely want to fly to the U.S. in June just to race a one day event.
Prize money is also down and the women’s race is essentially a crit with no TV coverage and poor prize money. Philly is going downhill faster than a rider on the Fall from The Wall.
Landis let loose when he decided he was done with the sport. Is it the same for Dieter?
Hope not.
Unfortunately it looks like we’re in for years of battling. Dieter is likely to join Mike Norton in putting on non-USAC races and encourage others to drop out of USAC. To the average rider this means that the upgrade process is going to become a mess.
Dieter was pretty clear that he’s not against the USAC, just the arbitrary decisions made by its leadership.
USAC is kinda like the government – does some things you like and some you don’t. But at least you can vote for new federal leadership every four years.
These guys at USAC have a death grip on their positions that make Kim Jong Il look like an advocate for term limits.
A little shake-up would be good…
That was a genius Eustice posting, who’s a master of self aggrandizement. To recap, no one reading this understands what he does about hosting a ProTour team. Not like he does, since he worked with them at Philly.
But he’s a humble man too, since he points out that his race is in the shadow of Philly, a great race that must employ great people. Like, for example, John Eustice.
And the best part of the post? It’s at best remotely related to Dieter’s Op Ed.
Some of the comments pound away at the notion that USAC/UCI has to be the single source of all bike racing. As the rapidly growing racing in Oregon and Colorado prove, they don’t! As good as racing is in Oregon and Colorado, California’s growth in racing comes from promoters migrating away from USAC.
Dieter,
Being a USAC sanctioned promoter for some time appears to develop Stockholm Syndrome. Switch to an independent federation. Oregon and Colorado racing attendance proves that ending your relationship with USAC will only improve your event.
was and is a pro at all sorts of things cycling. no one else around here is. end of story…
right. and as far as baby huey, i mean, john and his cronies are concerned, no one will ever get the opportunity to be ‘pro’ unless he and his cronies dictate or approve of it. i mean, after all, they’re like ‘family!’ plus, that’s the whole point. it’s a political move and it’s a popularity sport (the governing body, et al). lest one criticize it and be deemed ‘uncool’ and ‘unpopular.’ but they know that they have their little sycophantic lackeys (like you alessio) that they can continue to manipulate while they feign sacrifice and hardwork. haha! the reality is, according to john, “it’s our dirty little world, with our dirty little secrets.” the broom wagon needs to sweep them up. eventually, i imagine, it will.
Senne just because mommy didn’t put a piece of candy in your brown bag lunch when you were a kid, doesn’t mean you should hold on to that anger your whole life. Ease up man, let it go. Enjoy life, eat out more often. Go to Jacques Torres in Brooklyn, buy a piece of homemade chocolate. You’ll feel much better.
“When you host a UCI race, not only are you not allowed to charge entry fees, you often have to pay the foreign teams to come. At a minimum you end up giving them a travel stipend, of ca $7500 – $10,000 for a team of 6 + staff, and have to provide them vehicles, and lodging, A team of 6 + staff need 2 or 3 vehicles, and lodging is required at least 2 days prior to the race, as well as sometimes after. A ProTour Team will demand more than a Pro Conti or a Conti team. This is what is laughable about Battenkill’s argument with USAC/UCI over not allowing Pro Tour teams to compete. Even if they could compete in a 1.2 race, they would still need the budget to pay them to come, which obviously they don’t have this year.”
read thw whole post –
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/1/31/1966796/ever-wondered-how-much-it-costs-to-host-the-amgen-tour-of-california
1.2 and 2.2 UCI races do not require promoters to pay for travel stipends for teams. That’s only for 1.1 races and above. As for your other claim that UCI races are “not allowed to charge entry fees”…the Tour of California routinely required teams to give payola in the amounts of $20-$50k in exchange for an invite. The Tour de France and other ASo races use to play similar quid pro quo games. Without a team buying a VIP package or some other race signage, they simply won’t get an invite.
Those crits better start saving up then…
Tell me, why would USAC get this golden deal for crits unless they thought it was possible that the big teams and riders might show up? Was this done to give Lance a US farewell tour?
I think most people here don’t get it or don’t want to get it. USAC blew it (again).
Dieter’s statement “As such, NRC events – as “national events” – are restricted to UCI continental teams of the country, regional and club teams, national teams and mixed teams”. This has been the established tradition with the NRC with rare exception and controversy (the Tour of the Gila in 2009, for example). ProTeam and Professional Continental teams are explicitly prohibited under UCI 2.1.009 from competing in “national events”, that is, NRC-level events” is simply not true.
The UCI paid no attention to enforcing this rule prior to Gila 2009. Navigators and whatever other Pro Conti teams were around always did NRC races. I remember them at Somerville every year. Now with Somerville on the crit calendar, Type 1 can race.
So, Dieter’s statement is true and teams like Team Type I can now go to NRC crits whereas before they couldn’t. Or am I missing something?
The established tradition was that the UCI enforce the rules and that even though Pro Continental(Division 2) teams like Navigators were technically barred from NRC races as Dieter states, they were allowed to race. It’s not even clear who knew that there were rules. I have no clue if there was any agreement or acknowledgment between USAC and UCI about this.
sorry typo – left out did not.
The UCI did not enforce the rules ….
Since 2009 Gila, the UCI began to pay attention to enforcing the rules in the US. They allowed exceptions for Pro riders to race at Gila in 2009 and 2010. The UCI announced in Sept 2010 that they will no longer allow exceptions.
This article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-keep-top-teams-out-of-national-events is about the change.
It is also probably the article that Dieter cites that sparked his letter to the UCI to request them to not allow Pro Conti riders into NRC crits. Dieter states in his op-ed
“USA Cycling announced that not only UCI Professional Continental but now also UCI ProTeams (in excess of the September, 2010 rumor!) would now be allowed at NRC Criteriums in 2011.”
You can read the Sept. cyclingnews article to see that the rumor clearly included Pro Tour teams.
Like it or not, crits are the only “fan-friendly” road cycling events unless you have multiples upon multiples of fields (and not all races can attract a seperate Cat 4 turquoise race). When you have lots of people gather to watch, you have more chances for sponsors. When you have sponsors, you have more options. Based on this, having a crit bias simply makes sense in our cash strapped sport.
and road races.
Just don’t favor one over the other.
Which is what USAC has done.
Regarding ‘fan friendly’ events, there are no fans at 99.99% of bike races in the anonymous business parks and on the empty roads in the U.S. Zero. Best case scenario, a local Cat 1/2’s significant other is there. This is by design.
UCI wants the fans tuning into Pat McQuaid’s/ASO’s events, not some local event they don’t own. It should be no surprise a few of the races the UCI recognizes as competition for Pat and the ASO get the shaft.
crits and to a lesser degree cx and short track mtb races get anonymous spectators
In the interest of transparency Dieter should publicly release the letter he sent to the UCI in Sept. USAC and other NRC promoters are saying that he requested the UCI to eliminate the exception used by Gila and bar Pro Team and Pro conti riders from NRC events. This is exactly what Dieter is asking for now. Dieter says that in Sept. he asked the UCI to bar Pro Conti riders from crits.
If Dieter’s story is right, releasing the letter will embarrass USAC and show that his argument has been consistent and not just to advance what was in his self interest at a particular point in time.
In the op-ed he suggests that “an alternate solution was presented to USA Cycling for non-criterium events – Chapter 8 – “Individual Races” which would have allowed similar access to non-criterium events. Though equally apparent in the UCI rulebook, it was not secured in conjunction with criteriums during USA Cycling’s discussions with the UCI.”
Is Dieter being disingenuous?
The agreement between USAC and the UCI along Chapter 8 lines is what the UCI explicitly said would no longer apply to NRC races in Sept. Chapter 8 is explicitly for individual races that are not on the national calendar but the UCI was letting NRC races use its provisions to invite Pro Team riders. Chapter 8 is what the UCI let Gila use to invite Pro Tour riders in 2009 and 2010.
Drake is a rare bird in the land of cycling. An honest man of integrity, industrious, smart, creative, talented, and a great rider to boot.
You know in your own lives, that when you have done all you can for a sport and the big egos swoop in and ruin your efforts and then John Eustice uses this moment to promote himself without bothering to talk with Drake to see what really happened, it shows why cycling as an organized sport needs a drastic shake up.
On a personal level none of us want to be kicked when we are down and need support.
Have any who have criticized Drake thought from this perspective that he just might be deserving of our trust our support and that he is acting in all our interests to promote the spirit of cycling for us and our children?
Hi Folks,
I think “transparency” is code for ‘I would further like to try and pick you apart’, but what the heck.
Please read UCI rule 2.1.005 and 2.1.009 – http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&LangId=1
My argument then is at it is now: there are two standards – national events and UCI events. UCI events meet a higher standard and should have access to a higher class of teams and riders over “national events” like criteriums. Period.
In any case, the September 16, 2010 correspondence to the UCI and their response is below. I have removed email addresses, contact information, and some people also copied on this that have inconsequential involvement. No other person was copied on this email.
Dieter Drake
Race Director
2011 Tour of the Battenkill
From: Chovelon Marc – UCI
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 4:47 AM
To: Petty, Sean
Cc: [name deleted], Chevallier Philippe – UCI; McQuaid Pat – UCI
Subject: FW: UCI vs. national-level events
Dear Sean,
I received the communication here after, can you please make me a state of affair of that, in order to be sure that the UCI races can be protected and above all that UCI rules are respected on the limitation of professional team/riders on the national level ?
Thank you very much for your time and collaboration
All the best
Marc Chovelon
Coordinateur sportif – Route
Sports coordinator – Road
Union Cycliste Internationale
CH – 1860 Aigle
[phone and fax deleted]
http://www.uci.ch
________________________________________
From: Dieter
Sent: jeudi 16 septembre 2010 02:31
To: McQuaid Pat – UCI
Cc: Chevallier Philippe – UCI;
Subject: UCI vs. national-level events
Hello Mr. McQuaid,
I hope all is well. I happened to see this article today – http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-keep-top-teams-out-of-national-events. I have no problem with it other than the following –
“It is rumored that the ProTour and Professional Continental riders could be permitted to participate in the abundance of national level criteriums held in the US, a style of racing that is not recognized by the UCI.”
This would put races like the Tour of the Battenkill at a distinct disadvantage and I would take issue with it. I – along with other domestic UCI-level promoters – am following a higher standard for a higher quality event as measured by the UCI. A national-level criterium promoter allowed to invite ProTour and Pro Continental teams disrupts the whole process; why would the Tour of the Battenkill or other domestic UCI event (present or future) pursue UCI sanctioning if a criterium promoter can operate under an inferior standard and attract a higher quality field? I had concerns over national-level events like the Tour of the Gila being allowed to invite ProTour riders in the past two editions, but saw this as a benefit to a race that was struggling financially, so I did not raise the issue. My present concern, however, is higher.
Please let me know what the logic and/or latest thinking is relating to this so that I and other promoters here can make the best decision relating to how we proceed ahead of the 2011 road season.
Many thanks,
Dieter
Dieter Drake
General Manager
Anthem Sports / Tour of the Battenkill
[phone and fax deleted]
Clearcoat,
As a point of clarification, UCI Chapter 8 is NOT what Gila used to invite Pro Tour riders in 2009 and 2010. While that section of the UCI rulebook potentially could have applied to the road stages (but not the ITT or criterium), it was entirely negated by the use of team vehicles in the caravan, as that is specifically forbidden.
Moreover, Chapter 8 would not have required the ProTeam participants to wear different (unique) team jerseys.
No, Gila was just another example of the USAC/UCI arbitrarily choosing which rules to enforce and which races to selectively support. No different than their decision to deny the Battenkill UCI 1.1 status or create a “preferred class” of NRC criteriums.
Dieter is just doing what he can to protect his business. In his position, you would either be doing the same thing, or you would be bankrupt and out of business.
Connie K.
518-441-2319
At eighty five dollars a head I somehow doubt he’s going bankrupt.
I have no idea what all of this is saying. Words words words…
I’m just a caveman!
Dieter,
Thank you for posting Dieter. There is no intent to pick you apart. There is only intent to understand what is going on between USAC,the UCI and you and its impact on the development of the sport in the US.
I remain a little confused.
You state,”My argument then is at it is now: there are two standards – national events and UCI events. UCI events meet a higher standard and should have access to a higher class of teams and riders over “national events” like criteriums. Period.”
This is confusing as you are now threatening to sue USAC for not giving you a new NRC date and access to Pro riders as an NRC event.
It also doesn’t work for you to pick which bad rules the UCI should enforce.
As you know the crit rule is an old rule.
The only thing USAC is guilty of is thinking that the status quo of the UCI allowing Pro Conti riders in NRC races would continue.
Now they are trying to get back whatever they can by using UCI rules.
David LaPorte, (Nature Valley Grand Prix) makes some excellent points about how UCI rules are not helping the sport in the US in the comments section of http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/op-ed-john-eustice-on-the-tour-of-the-battenkill-controversy_158396
The UCI is looking to encroach on cycling in the US. It’s not fair to blame USAC as you have.
It’s not fair to use UCI standards which don’t work for cycling in the US to gain an advantage over other races. In the end that attempt did not work out well for you.
I hope Connie is not speaking for you when he states that you are only looking out for your business interests.
I am most certainly protecting a business interest and the professional race is the product. It is as valid as the interest of promoting the sport. You can’t sue someone for hurting you’re feelings. My position is clearly stated.
The specific content of any legal matter I can’t discuss. I can say that we have a strong position. If you would like to contact my attorney he would be happy to speak with anyone that uses their real name. So far there are a total of three in this discussion.
Dieter Drake
Race Director
Tour of the Battenkill
If the rules don’t fit, UCI won’t commit!
Dieter,
I am not sure I have this right but I think you are challenging the right of the UCI to organize the sport with separate circuits of World Tour, Europe, Americas etc.
Am I right that you contend that they have no right to turn down your request for a 1.1 rating.
The UCI takes the awarding of points within each circuit seriously. For example they threw a fit last Dec. with the New England Verge series after Laura van Gilder was the top ranked woman in the world.
Based on past attendance(no Pro teams),prize list and other matters it does not seem unreasonable for the UCI to turn down your 1.1 request. Did you give them guarantees of Pro Team participation and propose a much enlarged prize list?
Are you proposing that all races have equal access to all riders and that the organization of a World Tour and other UCI and USAC rules constitute an illegal monopoly?
1. Why was the Pro/Am Event not moved to April 16th and the Pro Race date kept then rather than the attempt to move the Pro race to April 10th?
2. While the outcome was most unfortunate for the Tour of the Battenkill, was it not known last fall that this change in UCI regulations regarding NRC events a possibility (and with no assurance whatsoever that the UCI was also grant Battenkil an upgraded racing status)?
It seems to me that Dieter made a (bold) business (risk) decision, which I admire, but, ultimately backfired. Am I missing something?
3. Why does the Tour of the Battenkill need the highest level Pro racers to be competitive and/or profitable? There are some 2,500 racers signed up. If its not profitable with this number of racers then why not increase the entry fee, which may result in fewer racers, but allow for a higher profit margin per rider? Or, is sponsor money needed to make it work no matter what?
4. I think Battenkill is great event and course for the racers, but also agree with other comments here that, as is, its not really spectator friendly and attending bike racers is not in the American culture. My kids came to race two years ago and sat in the car for most of the race. They saw me start and that was it. Look at the big racers in Europe – the course is lined with fans – its a major event. Here it is not, plus it takes place in a rural, inconvenient location with little or no media coverage. I don’t like it, but I can understand why the UCI is not supportive. Remember, they used to have a Formula 1 race in Watkins Glen, NY??
How about a stage race with the prologue in Central Park and a stage up and back on the Bronx River Parkway. A circuit race in Harriman – would never happen – but in this country I think you have to bring the race to the people…
Drake is simply stating that a commercial business contract is a boilerplate set of agreements. However, UCI and our own cycling organizations do not always operate within commercial law. Perhaps they only use the law to enforce their positions and feel free to use unilateral conflict of interest and whimsical egotistical methods the rest of the time.
If Drake is at fault it is only that we and he thought that the rule of business law applies.
For the sake of cycling this chauvinistic and purloined betrayal is something to be fought and changed.
Also the site of Summer Jam 1973 featuring The Dead, The Band and The Allman Brothers. More people attended than Woodstock. My HS girl friend and I lost our virginity and a lot of brain cells that weekend.
If you’re looking to use the UCI rules as a strict binding contract, Dieter is probably in the wrong. The rules clearly state that Criteriums on the National Calendar can invite Pro Team and Pro Continental riders as long as 50% of all riders are on UCI teams.
While this rule was never used in the US before it has been in the rulebook for many years.
For better or worse, it looks like we’ll get to see how an actual court rules on this.
Somehow I think Mr. Drake’s attempt to go to court has more to do with his desire to bring down USAC and the UCI and build a new foundation for a post Lance post doping era of cycling.
NO. The actual contracts are contracts not at all what I am saying. You are entitled to your ideas and conclusions, however, speculation is not the same as a contract.
Note William Clearcoat’s response method.
-William has vague reference to generate doubt regarding Deiter’s motives and behavior.
-Someone replies and debunks the vague allegation of misdeeds on Deiter’s part
-William acknowledges his allegation is false then drops another non-specific allegation against Deiter.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
William Clearcoat is a troll. Deiter’s position looks better and better with each reply from Clearcoat.
I decree Floyd Bennett Field a UCI approved venue from this day unto eternity.
This is likely to be the end of Dieter’s career dream of promoting big time pro races. Sorry to see so many of you applauding as Dieter digs his own grave and damages himself and the sport.
the end of your career as a troll.
Clearcoat, Bearing, and Saddlebag:
While it’s nice to see the level of skepticism expressed at every turn, you keep reverting back to the same arguments that have already been completely addressed (or debunked) in Dieter’s op-ed and many of the comments. Try re-reading the content of what’s been published – it’s getting old already.
Clearcoat’s recent comparison to cyclocross has absolutely no bearing on this situation – American road racing can easily meet or exceed European standards, both in respect to course selection and quality of participation. In fact, several racers who competed at both Battenkill and Paris-Roubaix in past years have remarked about the similarities in course difficulty.
Bearing’s idea of moving the ProAm to 4/16 is quite impractical considering that 2,500 people are registered for Battenkill on 4/10, but exactly ZERO are registered for Anniston (the event that is scheduled the day before the Battenkill Pro/Am).
Clearcoat’s argument about the reasons for denying Battenkill UCI 1.1 status for 2011 is completely debunked by the recent inscription of the Tour of Utah as a Category 1 event with NO prior UCI history. I would suggest that promoter favoritism is hard at work here – should you carefully examine the situation, you will arrive at the same conclusion. But wait a minute – maybe you guys work for Medalist? Or the USAC? Or both? It’s hard to keep them separate these days.
Saddlebag, exactly how has Dieter hurt the sport? By creating the largest one-day classic in America? Or by increasing the number of new racers in New York State? Or by taking a stand when the USAC and UCI made a conscious decision to blacklist his event?
And finally, Clearcoat, I never implied that Dieter’s motivation in promoting the Battenkill was solely business – Dieter uses the proceeds of his events to support a number of cycling-related initiatives, including an exceptional junior development program, a regional elite women’s team, and a recreational health/wellness program. You should really learn a little more about him before making such accusations.
It’s difficult to deny that ProTeam attendance at the Battenkill would be a great benefit to the region. And it’s almost laughable to see some of the rationale that opposes this idea. Dieter has created a unique, successful, and well established event – if anyone is deserving of ProTeam attendance at an event, it’s certainly him.
If any of you skeptics care to lift your veil of anonymity for a brief moment, feel free to call me so we can debate, in detail, why Pro-Team attendance at the Battenkill is good for the Capital Region, for New York, and for the Northeast in general. But excuse MY skepticism if I say that I don’t expect your call anytime soon.
Connie K.
518-441-2319
The comparison with the Tour of Utah is interesting.
http://www.medalistsports.com/component/content/article/15-latest-news/90-medalist-sports-partners-with-larry-h-miller-tour-of-utah-for-2011-.html
The Larry H. Miller Tour of Utah developed for 7 years as an NRC race. The Miller’s who own the race also own the Utah Jazz of the NBA. The prize money for the race is $150,000.
Even with the $200,000 in entry fees for the Battenkill Pro/Am, Dieter is not in a position to acquire an NBA franchise.
Dieter and Connie have done nothing more than declare that they are worthy of holding a 1.1 race because as they say, The Battenkill is recognized as the best race in North America and so and so who is now a pro says it compares with racing Parix-Roubaix.”
It is a good race and it is a loss for the sport for it not to be on the UCI or NRC calendars.
The harm to the sport is in filing law suits and possibly looking to help a move to dismantle USAC. Taking USAC apart will only weaken the US’s weak position with the UCI. I’m not going to argue that changes do not need to be made but taking USAC apart will fragment the sport and destroy what progress has been made.
For the record, the 1.1 denial by the UCI never really bothered me that much when I found out back in August (though perhaps it bothered other people more); the mandated organizer obligations associated with a UCI 1.1 event are much more numerous and costly in comparison (we still approached them in 2010). I, like John Eustice and Univest, was happy with it. That’s never been a significant component to my complaint and can be considered a footnote, perhaps (though it may have some contextual relevance at some point). The leveraged leap frogging for one set of lower (NRC) events at the expense of higher (UCI) events is significant.
Pick away.
Dieter Drake
Race Director
2011 Tour of the Battenkill
Like the very old classic cartoon, Tom Terrific, they had to get rid of Crabby Appelton as he was rotten to the core.
I say take a graft of what is good from our organizations and start anew with a new planting.
Comment at Thu, 02/10/2011 – 4:29am is right to compare Tour of Utah and Battenkill.
Different formats, but both totally capable of being legitimate competitors to traditional UCI/ASO events. Which, is exactly the reason both events were discouraged from growing.
Deiter, go with an independent federation and never look back.
Federation of Independent Associations for Cycling is a good place to start.
FIAC is irrelevant to UCI rules concerning participation of pro teams. These rules have been covered endlessly in this post. Scary, I’m beginning to remember numbers like 2.1.005, 2.1.009, Chapter 8. USAC is also the US rep to the UCI. Dieter can explain the significance of this better than I can.
FIAC is relevant only for amateur races.
Dieter,
You’ve been doing great things for the sport. I hope you don’t blow it.
What happened to the Pro Battenkill race isn’t in anyone’s interest, UCI,USAC,riders, you.
I hope things aren’t made worse for cycling in the US.
I think John Eustice’s statement below sums things up well.
“I have been following the current Tour of the Battenkill vs. USA Cycling drama with a mixture of sadness, frustration and alarm. Sadness at the sight of a terrific race following a path that can only bring it harm; frustration with the unjust and unfounded vilification of USA Cycling, and alarm caused by the danger this conflict poses for the North American professional racing class.”
I am sure you disagree with the part of the statement about the vilification of USAC.
Best Wishes,
Mr. Saddlebag,
Ever been kicked when you have just done great things and when down someone comes along and makes his desert out of your having been trashed?
Have you or Eustice even bothered to look into this from the point of view of the people who have somehow created this amazing event despite the horrible organizations, low money incentive and incredible talent and creativity it took to do this?
Eustice never bothered to find out from Drake what really happened.
Is this not a time to gather around Drake and save this massively successful and wonderful event? Remember thousands of happy racers is quite testimony to the event from pro to hardly can show.
Or do you have Schadenfreude, pleasure in others misfortune?
You say “USAC is also the US rep to the UCI”. Then you say the USAC has been unjustly vilified. Which is it?
The UCI (hopefully) does not make decisions about American racing in a vacuum. If they do, the lack of advocacy from the USAC reflects poor management at the top. Dieter is simply calling for a change in USAC leadership, not abandonment of the organization.
BTW, still waiting for your call…
Connie
518-441-2319
it’s rubish i say.
Senor Saddlebag @ Thu, 02/10/2011 – 7:01am,
More of your vague allegations that are junk. Dieter had no access to UCI elites anyway. Now that his wildly popular and well run event has been knee-capped by the UCI, it’s a perfect example of Stockholm Syndrome if he stays with USAC sanctioning.
Moreover, 99.9% of the Elite riders in the U.S. do not have UCI affiliation. That’s a whole lotta 1/2/Pros showing up for Deiter’s event.
More empty allegations from Senor Saddlebag.
can i get a tl;dr up in this bitch?
have any of you guys criticizing Dieter ever put on a race? It takes a lot of work and time. Putting on a small race requires you to work on it months in advance. As the race gets bigger, the lead time gets bigger. So do the costs and what you have to put out up front.
When you plan you plan based on the rules you know are in place. Having the rules changed on you a couple of months before your race is going to have a HUGE impact on your race. Especially one as big as Battenkill.
It is pretty obvious USA cycling knew what was going to happen and still went ahead and screwed Dieter. For those of you that say that Dieter should just roll with punches since the rule change is good for the sport, why doesn’t USA cycling hold off with the new rule? There is no way they could not know the result was going to hurt Battenkill, one of the biggest races in the USA.
USA cycling is just playing favorites and does not care about promoters that are not on their list of friends.
give me a break, do you really think someone at USA cycling said “how are we going to get battenkill?” and someone replied “well, lets get an exception for crits, so he can’t get any top riders”.
For realz, the Dieter fans only care about Battenkill and they don’t care who they screw over, as long as they feel it was “fair”. You’re ruining the careers of riders, and that’s the truth.
You wrote;
“why doesn’t USA cycling hold off with the new rule?”
Because the would cost riders 15 opportunities to race and cost a lot of promotors access to pros.
When I first started following this Battenkill mess, I figured Dieter just had not thought the whole thing through. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. He’s thought it through and he just doesn’t care about cycling at all. He just wants his way, and doesn’t care if he tears down other races to get it.
There’s not one drop of happiness for the riders getting a bunch of new races to ride. He has every right think things need to be improved, but his complete lack of concern for riders is appaling.
With friends like him, the sport doesn’t need any enemies.
Gross – you failed to explain how Dieter is “tearing down” other races.
Read his notes, it isn’t about anything but making sure he is granted better rider access than criteriums. Which is ridiculous, since the world over its standard practice to let whatever rider a promotor wants ride in a criterium. It’s like he would have been happier if pros were not allowed to ride the criteriums.
He’s pulling in nearly $250,000 k in entry fees, that doesn’t sound like any pro race I’ve ever heard of.
Capt. Wishnia wants to reduce bike related accidents to 0. Since bike related accidents make up only 1/4 of all accidents in the park the Captain has a lot of work to do to make the park safe. Here are some tips for the Captain in reducing health risks in the park to 0.
How many cases of pedestrians tripping over curbs have resulted in broken ankles? We need to see the stats. If there has been an increase, maybe the curbs need to be removed. I’ve tripped several times.
It’s good that there is no more smoking in the park so no one will have to inhale second hand smoke. But have they measured the decibels put out by concerts at Summer Stage or people playing music in other parts of the park. Further testing might show that music playing in the park is damaging the hearing of thousands of New Yorkers. I often leave the park with ringing in my ears.
Large gatherings at the Met Opera and Philharmonic concerts bring thousands of people into close proximity. One person with a cold or the flu can spread germs to thousands resulting in thousands of hours of missed work or even worse get me sick. These events are too dangerous to continue to be held.
I am always nervous of being hit by an errant throw when I walk past the softball fields. The players in the Bway show leagues are not that good and I am scared that a missed catch by the first baseman will hit me in the head. I think these games are too unsafe. Maybe testing the skills of the players will help but if they are too good, long hits will end up in crowds of people causing serious injury.
Frisbee playing in the Sheep Meadow is probably banned but people play all the time. I fear whenever I enter the area that a Frisbbe player with eyes only for the Frisbee will run smack into me.
And yes it is all about me, after all I am a New Yorker.
I hear they’re ticketing cyclists in & around Battenkill who stop on the side of the road to make passionate love with sheep. Be careful out there.
I once saw kid get his teeth knocked out by a swing in a CP playground. Get rid of the swings!
The end justifies the means?
I’ll paraphrase – screw a few races so that a few more get the deal.
The thing is, nobody but a very small handful of peopl, who only care about batten kill, think anyone is being screwed over. The one thing that none of the battenkilll krazies will admit is that the pro racing class is better off than they were.
The complaining has nothing to do with anything bad happening to battenkill, the whole compliant is about something good happening to other races and the riders.
Ok Lance. Go ahead and continue to use your influence to continue to step on people on your way to fortune. Forget about rules, precedent, and the appearance of impropriety. It’s all worth it.
I think you mean “Ok Dieter”, he’s the one doing the things you reference.
not worthy of a response
Unless Lance uses the crits for a Farewell Tour there will be little impact on crits and it’s doubtful Lance will do that. He’s not going to win and Dan and Andy might show up to sell copies of Toto.
Battenkill was only offering Lance a Fareill Tour so he wasn’t going there anyway.
Very overblown issue.
Of course pro racing is better off now. The guys who are running USA cycling only really care about pro cycling. They all came from pro cycling or were hired by the guys from pro cycling. Ever since the guys from pro took over usa cycling all the policies favor pro cycling.
Seems that Dieter isn’t down on crits getting a leg up, as much as he’s pissed that road races are not being treated the same. Fair point. Anyone with an interest in bike racing should be behind him on at least that point.
Only the most dedicated specators out there have interest in watching anything but the top, top pros. Makes complete sense. (How may people do you know who watch Major League Baseball compared to minor league baseball?)
Those top, top pros ride for ProTeams. You don’t get the ProTeams without the UCI’s blessing. No ProTeams = no spectators, no spectators = anemic sponsorship, and there you are, race is not financially sustainable. Pretty simple stuff.
For whatever reason, the UCI (and by way of complicity USA Cycling) is absolutely requiring road races to spend MUCH more to get its blessing then crits, who can now invite ProTeams.
It only makes sense that in a country like the US where cycling is a marginal spectator sport that the UCI relaxes its barriers to entry.
All forms of bike racing could use a shot in the arm, but you could argue that road races, not being as spectator friendly as crits, need it even more.
Why the UCI is now upping the barrier to entry for road races (as it has for Tour of the Gila), while at the same time lowering them for crits is a mystery. Seems completely fair for Dieter and the Tour of the Battenkill to cry foul on that one.
…Only the most dedicated specators out there have interest in watching anything but the top, top pros. ….
Where are you? Battenkill is not a Spring Classic in a country that loves cycling.
We all know who’s out there watching, other racers, a few of their significant others and a the locals that accidentally found it. Until USAC changes their charter to promote grassroots racing, no spectators will be showing up anytime soon.
No Continental Pros needed either. A bunch of poor, starving 1’s and 2’s looking to make a name for themselves will race hard and it’ll be good.
Dieter, thanks for supporting amateur racing, but $75 for a one-day race??? C’mon Son!
http://cmonson.com/images/index_02.gif
Jesus. Here we go again. Another crybaby rolling on $7K worth of bicycle complaining about spending $75 to use that bike for it’s intended purpose.
Dieter puts on a top notch event. He has no problem filling categories to capacity at $75. Why should he charge less? Are you planning on telling your boss that you don’t need so much money next year? There are 890813457689134 other races this season, if $75 isn’t worth it, do a different race.
I am Deetah, and it is time to dance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZR9SA5pOg
My cover is blown.
Dieter Drake
Race Director
2011 Tour of the Battenkill
http://www.torofthebattenkill.com
Charging too much for events is something Dieter shares with USAC and the UCI. The $95 USAC charges for nationals is bad and UCI’s using the $200 Gran Fondo NY as a qualifier for Master’s Worlds is a mockery of the sport on so many levels.
You’re in good company Dieter.
I heard Dieter was do 30K worth of blow with 7 porn stars in his mansion on TMZ
Where’s the proof??? Dieter is THE most investigated promoter in cycling!!!
Dieter puts the race money back into his NY-based Jr, Wm, and Master programs. USAC feeds the pigs in Colorado and Switzerland.
And nobody’s spotted Dieter in a pimped-out Escalade full of porn stars (yet).
you gotta be FCUKING KIDDING ME that the gran fondo randodondo new yawk is a qualifier for st. johann (or wherever it’ll be held) masters worlds??????
Charging too much for events is something Dieter shares with USAC and the UCI.
Said the Type-A Wall Street jock with $20,000 in cycling equipment. Seriously? $2000-$6000 for a bike alone and you can’t come up with less than $100 for an epic road race?
Try officially closing a street or two and hiring cops sometime. You will discover a huge chunk of the entry fee goes to put on the event.
While I agree that USAC is intentionally increasing entry fees, it is a part of the UCI’s current strategy of ‘quality not quantity’
You should check out where that money goes. Most of it vanishes into Wiesel’s pet project, USACDF. He’s using membership revenue to develop racers so he alone can collect the profit from said rider at Tailwind Sports. That’s the setup he has with Team Pharmstrong.
you gotta be FCUKING KIDDING ME that the gran fondo randodondo new yawk is a qualifier for st. johann (or wherever it’ll be held) masters worlds??????
Yessir! Of course, the Masters top-5 will have a doping program better than the Pros, so don’t bother unless you can enter the doping arms race.
There are other federations putting on events. Colorado and Oregon have practically no USAC/UCI presence and a huge grassroots scene. No USAC means a diverse racing scene. Google “federation of independent cycling associations”
One need look no further than USAC’s crappy website to know it is a horse-sh%t outfit.